ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2024
Utility of the Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis Calculator in a Low-Risk Population.
Article in American journal of perinatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based neonatal outcome prediction: an LSTM autoencoder framework for pattern analysis and risk assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare early-onset sepsis (EOS) risk estimation and recommendations for infectious evaluation and/or empiric antibiotics using a categorical risk assessment versus the Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis Calculator in a low-risk population. STUDY
designRetrospective chart review of late preterm (≥35
resultsWe identified 1,187 infants who met inclusion criteria. A blood culture was obtained within 72 hours after birth from 234 (19.7%) infants and 170 (14.3%) received antibiotics per routine clinical practice, using categorical risk assessment. Respiratory distress was the most common indication for evaluation, occurring in 173 (14.6%) of patients. After applying the Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis Calculator to this population, the recommendation was to obtain a blood culture on 166 (14%), to start or strongly consider starting empiric antibiotics on 164 (13.8%), and no culture or antibiotics on 1,021 (86%). Utilizing calculator recommendations would have led to a reduction in frequency of blood culture (19.7 vs. 14%,
conclusionThis population is low risk for development of EOS; however, 19.7% received an evaluation for infection and 14.3% received antibiotics. Utilization of the Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis Risk Calculator would have led to a significant reduction in the evaluation for EOS but no reduction in antibiotic exposure. Consideration of delivery mode and indication for delivery may be beneficial to include in risk assessments for EOS. KEY POINTS: · Cesarean section with rupture of membranes at delivery confers low risk for EOS.. · Respiratory distress often triggers an EOS evaluation.. · Delivery mode should be considered in EOS risk..
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.